rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.
Vietnam where communists aided a revolution to overthrow the government which the US supported.
Afghanistan, where the US aided a revolution to overthrow the government which Moscow supported.
Revenge is a perfectly justifiable term to use - the US saw their chance to inflict a Vietnam style defeat on the Soviets. Unlike Vietnam, the defeat in Afghanistan severely undermined the USSR, so in the context of the Cold War, the US got more value out of their involvement than the Soviets managed.
The Communists overthrew the Afghan government which caused the rebellion. The US eventually supported that, once the Soviets had intervened. Your version of events is false. Moscow supported the coup and then lost the war.
Now, Moscow is arming the Taliban. Care to comment on your double standards? You claim to be a journalist and frankly its not surprising that much of the ME believes fantasy conspiracy theories with people like you printing half truths and down right bullshit.
And the difference between 'sending in' and 'creating'. The Mujaheddin was already there. The US supported them. They didn't send them in, as you wrote, which implies that they were some outside force that the US instructed to enter the fight. They were already in a brutal battle with the Soviets when the US got involved. Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.